hence it was taken and used so frequently in the gospels: and our Saviour intimates himself to be this very son of man in saving, Matt. xxvi. 64, 65,—' Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven;" and thereupon he was charged by the high-priest with having 'spoken blasphemy.'

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed,'-ver. 14. All these kingdoms shall in their turns be destroyed, but the kingdom of the Messiah shall stand for ever and it was in allusion to this prophecy, that the angel said of Jesus before he was conceived in the womb, Luke i. 33,—' He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.'

After what manner these great changes will be effected, we cannot pretend to say, as God hath not been pleased to reveal it. We see the remains of the ten horns, which arose out of the Roman empire. We see the little horn still subsisting, though not in full strength and vigour, but as we hope upon the decline, and tending towards a dissolution. And having seen so many of these particulars accomplished, we can have no reason to doubt that the rest also will be fulfilled in due season, though we cannot frame any conception how Christ will be manifested in glory, how the little horn with the body of the fourth beast will be given to the burning flame, or how the saints will take the kingdom, and possess it for ever and ever. It is the nature of such prophecies not to be perfectly understood, till they are fulfilled. The best comment upon them will be their completion.

It may yet add some farther light to these prophecies, if we compare this and the former together; for comparing scripture with scripture is the best way to understand both the one and the other. What was represented to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a great image,' was represented again to Daniel by four great wild beasts :' and the beasts degenerate, as the metals in the image grow worse and worse, the lower they descend.

'This image's head was of fine gold,' and 'the first beast was like a lion with eagles' wings;' and these answer to each other; and both represented the powers then reigning, or the kingdom of the Babylonians: but it appeared in splendor and glory to Nebuchadnezzar, as it was then in its flourishing condition: the plucking

of its wings, and its humiliation were shown to Daniel, as it was then drawing near to its fatal end.

'The breast and arms of silver,' and 'the second beast like a bear,' were designed to represent the second kingdom, or that of the Medes and Persians. The two arms' are supposed to denote the two people; but some father particulars were hinted to Daniel, of the one people rising up above the other people, and of the conquest of three additional kingdoms. To Nebuchadnezzar this kingdom was called inferior, or worse than the former; and to Daniel it was described as very cruel, Arise, devour much flesh.'

The third kingdom, or that of the Macedonians, was represented by the belly and thighs of brass,' and by the third beast like a leopard with four wings of a fowl.' It was said to Nebuchadnezzar, that it should bear rule over all the earth;' and in Daniel's vision, 'dominion was given to it.' The four heads' signify Alexander's four successors; but the two thighs' can only signify the two principal of them the Seleucida and Lagidæ, the Syrian and Egyptian king.

The legs of iron,' and 'the fourth beast with great iron teeth,' correspond exactly; and as 'iron breaketh in pieces' all other metals, so the fourth beast devoured, and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it;' and they were both therefore equally proper representatives of the fourth kingdom, or the Roman, which was stronger and more powerful than all the former kingdoms. The ten toes' too and the ten horns' were alike fit cmblems of the ten kingdoms, which arose out of the division of the Roman empire; but all that relates to the little horn' was revealed only to Daniel, as a person more immediately interested in the fate of the church.

6

The stone,' that was cut out of the mountain without hands and became' itself a mountain, and filled the whole earth,' is explained to be a kingdom, which shall prevail over all other kingdoms, and become universal and everlasting. In like manner, 'one like the son of man came to the ancient of days,' and was advanced to a kingdom, which shall prevail likewise over all other kingdoms, and become universal and everlasting.

Such concord and agreement is there between these prophecies of Daniel, which, remarkable as they are in many things, are in nothing more remarkable, then that they comprehend so many distant events, and extend through so many ages, from the reign of the Babylonians to the consummation of all things. They are

truly, as Mr Mede called them, "the sacred calendar and great almanac of prophecy, a prophetical chronology of times measured by the succession of four principal kingdoms, from the beginning of the captivity of Israel, until the mystery of God should be finished."* They are as it were the great outlines, the rest mostly are filling up the parts and as these will cast light upon the subsequent prophecies, so the subsequent prophecies will reflect light upon them again.

Daniel was much troubled, and his countenance changed in him'-ver. 28, at the foresight of the calamities to be brought apon the church by the little horn: but he kept the matter in his heart.' Much more may good men be grieved at the sight of these calamities, and lament the prevalence of popery and wickedness in the world but let them keep it in their hearts,' that a time of just retribution will certainly come. The proof may be drawn from the moral attributes of God, as well as from his promise, ver. 26, 27,- The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an evelasting kingdom, and all dominion shall serve and obey him.'

* Mede's Works, b. 3, p 654.

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

LECTURE FOUNDED BY THE HONOURABLE ROBERT BOYLE

January 5, 1756.

THERE is not a stronger or more convincing proof of divine revelation, than the 'sure word of prophecy.' But to the truth of prophecy it is objected, that the predictions were written after the events; and could it be proved as well as asserted, it would really be an insuperable objection. It was thought therefore that a greater service could not be done to the cause of Christianity, than by an induction of particulars to show, that the predictions were prior to the events, nay that several prophecies have been fulfilled in these later ages, and are fulfilling even at this present time: And for the farther prosecution and the better encouragement of this work, 1 have been called to preach these lectures, by the favour and recommendation of the great prelate, who having himself written most excellently of the use and intent of prophecy,' is also willing to reward and encourage any one who bestows his time and pains upon the same subject. The ready and gracious concurrence of the other trustees* was an additional honour and favour, and is, deser

The trustees appointed by Mr Boyle himself, were Sir John Rotheram, Serjeant at law; Sir Henry Ashurst, of London Knt. and Bart.; Thomas Tenison. D. D. afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury; and John Evelyn, Esq. Archbishop Tenison, the survivor of these, nominated and appointed four trustees, Richard Earl of Burlington; Dr. Edmund Gibson, then Archdeacon of Surry, afterwards Lord Bishop of London; Dr. Charles Trimnel, then Bishop of Norwich, afterwards Bishop of Winchester; Dr. White Kennet, then Dean, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough; and Dr. Samuel Bradford, then Rector of St. Mary le Bow, afterwards Bishop of Rochester. The Earl of Burlington, being the only surviving trustee, appointed to succeed him in the said trust, William, then Marquis of Hartington, now Duke of Devonshire; Dr. Thomas Sherlock, Lord Bishop of London; Dr. Martin Benson, Lord Bishop of Gloucester; Dr. Thomas Secker, Lord Bishop of Oxford, now Archbishop of Canterbury; and the Honorable Richard Arundell, Esq; of whom Bishop Benson died before, and Mr. Arundell since the appointment of the present lecturer

ving the most grateful acknowledgement. Engaging in this service may indeed have retarded the publication of these discourses longer than was intended: but perhaps they may be the better for the delay, since there have been more frequent occasions to review and reconsider them; and time corrects and improves works as well as generous wines, at least affords opportunities of correcting and improving them.

This work hath already been deduced to the prophecies of Daniel and as some time and pains have been employed in explaining some parts of his prophecies, and more will be taken in explaining other parts; it may be proper, before we proceed, to consider the principal objections which have been made to the genuineness of the book of Daniel. It was before asserted, that the first who called in question the truth and authenticity of Daniel's prophecies, was the famous Porphyry, who maintained that they were written about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: but he was amply refuted by Jerome,* and hath been, and will be more amply refuted still in the course of these dissertations. A modern infidel hath followed Porphyry's example, and, in his 'Scheme of literal prophecy,' hath heaped together all that he could find or invent against the book of Daniel, and hath comprised the whole in eleven objections, in order to show that the book was written about the time of the Maccabees: but he likewise hath been refuted to the satisfaction of every intelligent and impartial reader; as indeed there never were any arguments urged in favour of infidelity, but better were always produced in support of truth. The substance of his objections, and of the answers to him, may with truth and candour be represented in the following manner.

1. It is objected, that the famous Daniel, mentioned by Ezekiel, could not be the author of the book of Daniel; because Ezekiel, who prophesied in the fifth year of Jehoiakim,' king of Judah, implies Daniel at that time to be a person in years; whereas the book of Daniel speaks of Daniel at that time as a youth. But here the objector is either ignorantly or wilfully guilty of gross misrepresentation. For Ezekiel did not prophecy in the fifth year of Jehoiakim,' nor in the reign of Jehoiakim at all; but he began to prophecy in the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,' the son and successor of Jehoiakim, Ezek. i. 2, that is, eleven years after. When Daniel

Hieron. Comment. in Dan. vol. 3, edit. Benedict.

+ See Collin's Scheme of literal prophecy, p. 149-157; Bp. Chandler's Vindication 4-157: Sam. Chandler's Vindication, p. 3-60.